Growers, Pesticides, and Endangered Species: Results of MCFA ESA Workshop Daniel A. Botts, Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association The Endangered Species Act & Pesticide Regulation: Scientific and Process Improvements American Chemical Society August 30, 2011 Denver, Colorado
MCFA ESA Workshop: May 24 & 25, 2011 Sponsored and Funded By Minor Crop Farmer Alliance MCFA Founded 1989 Endangered Species Act/Pesticides Implementation Process Needs Improvement Need for Open, Transparent Science-based Risk Assessment and Management Process with Grower Involvement Planning Committee Included Growers, EPA, NMFS, USFWS, USDA and Registrants 2
MCFA s Perspective Agricultural Production Can Coexist with Endangered Species Protection Goals Refinements to Risk Assessment and Mitigation Geographical and Temporal Use Information Biological Understanding of Species Protective Measures Need Specific Guidance on How and When to Engage 3
Workshop Goals Provide Grower Representatives an Understanding of the Processes and Analysis Leading to Identification of Risk and Mitigation Options by each Agency Identification of Grower Level Data that Would Enhance the Risk Identification and Risk Mitigation Decision Process Initiate Discussions on the Mechanisms to Provide such Data 4
Specific Questions Raised 1. Is there grower level information that is of value in the risk assessment and mitigation step development process at EPA? Or with the Services during specific consultations? 2. If grower information is useful -- What information is most desirable? How is it collected? How is it entered in the process? Who screens the data for completeness and accuracy? 3. What are the appropriate points of entry for grower and producer group s data in the EPA or Services endangered species risk determination and risk mitigation processes? 5
Desired Outcomes Determine how important grower information can be collected and used to inform the regulatory process. Provide an overview of how EPA, NMFS, USFWS and USDA can use grower developed data in the process. Determine the best places in the biological review process where growers can engage with EPA, NMFS, USFWS and USDA to determine effective and practical risk mitigation practices when necessary. 6
Workshop Overview First Day: Process Presentations EPA, NMFS, USFWS, & USDA Presentation of Case Studies Phosmet Prometryne Second Day: Facilitated Discussion Data Process Issues
EPA Focused on Registration Review Process Identified Several Points in Review Process for Clarification or More Detailed Information Identified Importance of Label Greatest Need is to Improve Risk Assessment Accurate Use and Usage Information Description of EFED Risk Assessment Process with Several Suggested points for Informal Consultations
NMFS Pointed out Complexity of Formal Consultation Process Triggered by Decision from Action Agency Take as a End Point of Risk Impacts to Population & Habitat Data Requirements & Analysis Safety Factors and Avoidance of Type 2 Errors
USFWS Process Very Similar to NMFS Use of Surrogates Shear Number of Species Involved Overlapping Characteristics of Protected Species with Target Organisms for Pesticides
USDA Overview of Information Sources and Programs to Mitigate Impacts Modeling of Production Impacts on Environmental Quality Definition of Best Practices Cost Share Programs to Provide Habitat Enhancements for Targeted Species
General Discussions after Process Presentations Grower Concerns Over Lack of Regional Specificity over Cropping Practices Grower Concerns Over When and How to Engage in Meaningful Data Collection Governmental Agencies Expressed Concerns over Timing and Efficiency of Review Process Everyone Agreed on the Need for a Robust Registration Review Process that Negates the Potential for Litigation
Case Studies Both Case Studies Highlighted Many of the Concerns and Issues Captured in the Presentations and Discussions Highlighted Importance of Geographically Specific Use and Usage Data Characterized Direct Differences Addressing the Individual Agencies Risk Assessment and Mitigation Processes
Basic Questions From Case Study Presentations What are the appropriate points in the registration review process to initiate discussions with both the registrant and the user community to identify, describe and verify crop specific use and usage information? What data sources are most complete and relevant to the risk assessment process? How will commodity groups know when to engage in the process and how to ensure that information collected and submitted is considered? How would the need for informal dialogue and discussions take place prior to formal consultations between EPA and the Services?
Registration Review Matrix Attached as Appendix 3 to Workshop Summary Includes Both Formal and Informal Discussions Between the Growers, EPA NMFS, and USFWS Supported by Direct Involvement of USDA
Other Action Items from the Workshop Develop and Distribute Workshop Summary Continue Dialogue and Broaden Participation from the Grower Community Develop a More Comprehensive Understanding of the BIOP Process During ESA Consultation Review and Participate in Data Collection, Review and Analysis During ESA Actions
Workshop Summary Available from: Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association www.ffva.com (Click on the Resources tab in the Banner on Home Page) California Citrus Quality Council www.calcitrusquality.org (Latest News Section on Home Page) Email contact: daniel.botts@ffva.com